1

p1 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati


Financial System Inquiry 4-8-2014
fsi@fsi.gov.au
Ref; 20140804-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Financial System Inquiry-Supplement 4 5

NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
Submission Stability - Addressing too-big-to-fail
Sir,
I provide this supplement 4 as I view it is relevant to matters I referred to previously. 10

I quote below a reference to a contempt case, which I view is disturbing in that out constitution
was designed to provide for responsible government

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And 20
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which 25
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE 30
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
35
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE 40
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the 45
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 50



2
p2 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE 5

Because it has been alleged that a court order was issued to suppress details of a case involving
the Reserve Bank of Australia, even so this Inquiry is in process then obviously many will fear
that they cannot canvas the alleged court orders, its implications, etc, albeit I view that an y
submission is protected by law, even if the parliament were not to accept the submission, because 10
of the legal principles embedded in the constitution of political liberty as referred to in
previous correspondences.

For this reason one has to use an example also as to question if an suppression order could be
legally justified and should it be. 15

Electors must be able to know what corrupt, if any, conduct Members of Parliament and
government is involved with and also the Departments under the control of responsible
Ministers
The suppression order ( refer to details below) that was against Kangaroo Court of Australia 20
blogger Shane Dowling in my view was uncalled for, without legal justification and I view
served no other purposes but to entrap Shane in publishing details so the suppression order rather
than the alleged deformation of the principal litigation
In my view the proceedings were conducted not so much for deformation but rather to get the
blogger for publishing despite an order where I view there was no sense in such prohibition order 25
in the first place.
.
In my view a court must not make an order merely bcause some party may request it but must
provide reasons why it makes or doesnt make any particular order. I couldnt detect in the
reasons of judgment any particular ground to justify the making of a suppression order, and in 30
particular as this was the product of EX PARTE litigation without the knowledge of the blogger
Shane I view the court had a duty to have a reason of judgment to set out what the purpose was
of the order.
.
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780 35
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded 40
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser. 45

Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) 50
p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons
for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but
the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE 55



3
p3 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Again:
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must
be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE 5

In particular when we are dealing with a newspaper owner it seems to be totally absurd to have a
suspension order put in place.

One also has to ask could this kind of suppression order be deemed to be harmful. 10
Could it be held that even with the breach of the suspension order the applicant suffered certain
harm? The courts must never issue orders merely to please an applicant. It must show to be
without bias and impartial.
It must also consider, where applicable that the administration of justice is not placed in question
and not so to say, leaning to the government to prevent the public their rights to be informed. 15
.
Here we had Mr Kerry Stokes pursuing a case of deformation but it app-ears to me his real
purpose was to get Mr Shane Dowling for breaching a suspension order by applying for a
suspension order which really could not have been deemed to service any purpose other than
entrapment to cause him to breach the suspension order. After all, why could the court not have 20
canvassed during the EX PARTE hearing why a suspension was deemed legally justified?
If the harm was deformation then the issue of a suspension order not against the material
complained about but the publication of the litigation hardly was one which could have served
any legal justified purpose.
From the material by Mr Shane Dowling I understood that where was a connection between Mr 25
Kerry Stokes lawyers and the judge who issues the suspension order and this rather indicates to
me that so to say the judge issued the orders like lollies then for a real legal justified issue.
.
I could have understood had the trail judge on basis of evidence, that is issues a suppression
order that Mr Shane Dowling was to remove temporary all and any publications Mr Kerry Stokes 30
complained about this as to not to undermine any benefits he may have were he to succeed in the
application. However, as I understood it the judge didnt even bother (considering he was aware
Mr Shane Dowling was not aware of the EX PARTE litigation against him,) to question the
deponents as to what basis they relied upon. In my view where a party is absent beyond his/her
own fault then the court must act in a manner to question the party present as ordinary the ab sent 35
party may have done. This is not that the court would take any participation in the litigation as a
party, but that a judge cannot take evidence as gospel without checking the quality and verify
details as a opponent party ordinary would do. As such, I view the judge should have questioned
what purpose the suppression order was to serve and what was the evidence relied upon. It
appears to me that the judge merely handed out the suppression orders like a lolly. 40
And this is a danger, because it undermines public debate. It prevents government accountability
where it relates to banking issues to which the Government gave as guarantee at financial risk of
taxpayers. While Mr Shane Dowling appeared to take on a Media mogul, he also was exposing a
lot of rot within the judiciary and as such unlikely could ever expect a FAIR and PROPER trial.
And indeed, I view the EX PARTE orders in themselves indicates an abuse of judicial powers. 45
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance. 50
END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:


4
p4 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRI NI DAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the 5
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man 10
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.: 15
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism. 20
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59 25
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLI CI TOR-GENERAL v RADI O AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
In my view there ought to be a judicial review of the Stokes v Dowling EX PARTE suppression
order and the subsequent contempt proceedings as I view the conduct of the court undermines the 30
integrity of the court.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/160.html
Zukanovic v Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Moorabbin (No 2) [2011] VSC 160 (3 May 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2000/198.html 35
Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg v Robinson & Anor [2000] VSCA 198 (24 October 2000)

While this matter was one of an instant dealing for contempt, etc, nevertheless the issue is that
The Stokes v Dowling EX PARTE suppression included a suppression order which I view could
be deemed a perversion of judicial authority. Numerous other cases are on record where a 40
judicial officer exceeds judicial power. Courts, and so in particular state courts exercising federal
jurisdiction may be open courts where its exercise of judicial power is and can remain to be
subject to ordinary scrutiny by the general community. While, it is generally accepted that when
it relates to heinous crimes, such as rape, that in those cases the identity of the victim is
suppressed, and at times that of the perpetrator where by the identity of the perpetrator the victim 45
might be identified, however in general litigation must be in open court. After all if the courts
exclude citizens from the court hearings then judicial officers may fall into conduct that is
beyond ordinary judicial conduct. A judicial officer may find the alleged conduct of an accused
to be repulsive and appalling but this never should or could the person to be held guilty as the
accused may in fact turn out to be innocent of the alleged violations. 50
In my view suppression orders must be in the extreme, and not given out either because a
government official may claim it relates to national security. The conduct of the accused may in
fact warrant disclosure to the general public because trails v can take years and if the general
public is denied any knowledge then ongoing harm can continue because of the hidden details.
For example if the Reserve Bank of Australia was to be involved in doggy dealing then 55
considering that a Member of Parliament may be a member of the board of directors then it


5
p5 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
demands open scrutiny by citizens. After all, governments can only be held accountable if the
public is informed about its misdoings.
If a bank was involved in so to say shady dealing then it is not for the court to issue suppression
orders as to hide the conduct as to seek to safeguard not national security but the profits of such
shady dealing purportedly claimed to be for national security. 5
In particular with the Global financial Crises (GFC) it was born out how secret banks and others
were operating. How municipal/shire councils were charging ratepayers moneys they recklessly
invested reportedly in death polities in the USA without any ability to know if the insured was
still alive or not. It is the secrecy that seems to be the order of the day.
. 10
I will use another example:
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia is
entitled to refuse entry to any alien/criminals it desires to deny entry.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of 20
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a 25
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. 30
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
.
With the Tampa incident in 2001 I held the Commonwealth was responsible because the Tampa
had been requested by the commonwealth to rescue people from the perils of the sea and as such 35
the International provisions of the Titanic applied. However, I view that the Framers of the
Constitution specifically gave the Commonwealth of Australia legislative power to deny any
alien to enter and so also criminals. The Commonwealth rather exercising this constitutional
rights, which the High Court of Australia cannot interfere with as it is not above the constitution,
the Commonwealth goes about in secrecy. By this the public is denied its right to hold the 40
government accountable.
As such the denial of publication, including the legal proceedings in the High Court of Australia
regarding alleged refugees is a political issue to which I view the High Court of Australia never
should have caved in for. It violated the separation of powers.
If indeed the Reserve Bank of Australia was involved in shady business dealings then the public 45
should not be denied to be ab le to openly communicate this matter.
.
When a court issue an order for suppression but as in the Stokes v Dowling even made the
suppression order to be suppressed, without setting out why this was so, then this not just stifle
the ability of the community to know what is going on or even prevent fair and proper discussion 50
amongst citizens but also an undermine the ability of a person to be aware if he/she is subject to
such orders and to what, if any, extend.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.- 55


6
p6 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be. 5
END QUOTE

How on earth can the public hold ministers and their officials accountable if the courts so to say
are dancing to the tune of the government and willing to issue a suppression order willy-nilly to
prevent public discussion? 10
Whereas it might be that the court have to issue a suppression order as to protect the right of a
accused where it may consider it could prejudice an accused/defendant of a Jury trial, it is
another matter to try to protect aliens of other countries, as their interest must be deemed to be
second to the right of the public to know what is going on within the banking system, in
particular where the government is seeking some kind of bail in and/or bail out for banks. 15
As such, the courts are then used as some puppet on a string where the court does so to say what
it is told by its masters rather than to act impartial.
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention), 20
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
. 25
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE 30

The principle of an open court cannot be negotiated by judicial officers merely as so to say to
please the government, it must in all perceptions b e and remain to be an open court in principle
and only if there is a certain issue such as to protect the identity of a rape victims then it is
reasonable to provide a suppression order, but not merely willy-nilly because some party may 35
apply for it EX PARTY or otherwise without any shred of evidence that it is justified to do so.
Indeed, such a suppression order that is so to say willy-nilly issued merely because it may suit for
political reasons the government would not only be an abuse of judicial powers but would also
prevent likely witnesses to come forward. After all, if people are not permitted to know there are
suppression orders or the identity of those involved then certain people who may know details 40
may never come forwards because they do not know it is relevant as they are unaware of the
litigation.
Say Mr X is involved in a fraudulent conduct and a suppression order is issued to protect the
bank allegedly for national security. Person A unware of this litigation, due to the suppression
order happens to be aware about Mr X and knows about certain dealings but doesnt connect this 45
to Mr X being before the courts and so vital and critical relevant evidence may be lost. It is not
uncommon that a person is charged and the public becomes aware of it and then other citizens
come forwards with details that are at times vital to the prosecutor. Hence a court should be and
remain an open court unless there are serious exemptions such as involving a rape case, and
then to protect the identity of the victim. Even in the Family Court of Australia one can ordinary 50
sit in the public gallery to hear details of family matters, this because it must be an open court.
.
I have been in public galleries where a judicial officer requested me to come down and to assist
an unrepresented party at the bar table, this even so I am not a legal practitioner but because the
judicial officer realized my expertise as a Professional Advocate (now retired) and 55


7
p7 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
CONSTITUTIONALIST to assist a party in litigation. Indeed, already way back in 1985 a
judge asked me how come I knew so much about the law, and then subsequently making known
that obviously I must have studied it.
I have been requested by judicial officers what I held would be an appropriate sentence of a
person found guilty of a charge and then the judicial officer subsequently applying the sentence I 5
had indicated may have the maximum benefit to the community.

IF WE CLOSE COURTS MERFELY BECAUSE IT MAY NOT SUIT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY BECAUSE IT MAY EMBARISH SOME OFFICIALS
THEN WE NO LONGER HAVE AN IMPARTIAL COURT BUT RATHER WE SINK 10
DOWN TO A KANGAROO COURT SYSTEM AND A STAR CHAMBER COURT
SYSTEM WHERE AN UNREPRESENTED PERSON MAY BE DENIED THE BENEFIT
OF ASSISTANCE, SUCH AS I DID, BECAUSE THE COURTS ARE CLOSING THE
COURTS FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY, AND WORK BACK IN THE DARK AGES, AS
IF THE TORTURE CHAMBERS ARFE BACK TO DRAW OUT CONFESSIONS, NOT 15
BECAUSE THE PERSON IS GUILTY BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY C ORRUPT OR
OTHER INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT BY THE JUDICIARY MAY FORCE THEM TO
CONFESS.
.
Having this Financial System Inquiry allows me to refer to matters under protection of the 20
Parliament which otherwise might be pursued against me. This means without this inquiry the
banks could recklessly act without public scrutiny because the government of the Day could
simply obtain a suspension order to prevent publications and so prevent the Government of the
Day to be held accountable, which in turn undermines the very fabrics of the constitution to have
a responsible government. 25
.
As indicated above I will now quote a publication on the KANGAROO COURT OF
AUSTRALIA website:

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2014/08/02/australian-kca-journalist-to-go-to-jail-for- 30
breaching-suppression-order-put-on-a-suppression-order-by-7s-kerry-stokes/
QUOTE KCA Website
Australian KCA journalist to go to jail for breaching suppression order put on a
suppression order by 7s Kerry Stokes
I will be going to jail sometime in the near future for doing nothing more than the crime of 35
journalism. Yes, journalism is now a crime in Australia. On Thursday the Supreme Court
of NSW in my absence ordered me to pay a fine and Channel 7s Chairman Kerry Stokess
costs. In lieu of the fine jail time is standard which is the option that I will take.
This is happening with the full knowledge and support of a dodgy NSW judiciary led by
Premier Mike Baird, Attorney-General Brad Hazzard and Chief Justice Tom Bathurst. 40
(Click here to read more)
There are two options, the first is trying to appeal on limited funds and playing the game on
their territory which they control or two, dont pay the fine and go to jail on
principle which helps highlight how corrupt the system is and fight hard in the court of
public opinion online which is our territory and we the public control. 45
The contempt
Channel 7 owner Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie instituted defamation
proceedings against me on the 14th of April 2014 and at the same time went to court ex


8
p8 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
parte (without my knowledge) and asked for a Suppression Order on the defamation
proceedings and for a Suppression Order on the Suppression Order as you can in the
document below.
The following day at 5pm Tuesday I was emailed the documents. The next day I published
a post on this site about it and wrote an email of complaint to the NSW Attorney-General, 5
Chief Justice Bathurst and the federal police. I have been found in contempt of court not
just for the post I published but also the email of complaint I sent to the Attorney-General
etc. Yes making a complaint is apparently a criminal offence even though it is protected as
political communication as per the High Court judgement Lange v ABC 1997.
The Suppression Order only lasted 2 days and expired at 4pm on Thursday the 17th April 10
although Stokess lawyers argued in court that day it should be extended permanently.
Justice Harrison did hand down a judgment on the 24th regarding the hearing on the 17th
but did not give specific reasons why he issued a Suppression Order in the first place on the
14th nor why did he have an ex parte hearing on the 14th of April. So why was the
Suppression Order issued in the first place and why a Suppression Order on a Suppression 15
Order.
Justice Harrison has never published a written judgment justifying it even though it is the
law that judges have to publish their reasons which is meant to keep them honest. It could
be argued that Justice Harrison is a criminal on the run as he cannot justify his actions and
judgment. 20
WikiLeaks The Suppression Order on the Suppression Order leaked
International news was made on Wednesday (30/7/14) when WikiLeaks leaked the
document that shows the federal government had managed to get a judicial officer to issue
a Suppression Order on a Suppression Order in a matter involving the Reserve Bank
international bribery scandal. Every media organisation in Australia has reported the story. 25
So will the courts or government have them charged for contempt? Of course not. So why
was I found guilty and fined?
The SMH said: In a statement provided to Fairfax Media, Assange said it was completely
egregious to block the publics right to know and suppress the media in any instance, and
especially in cases of international corruption involving politicians and subsidiaries of a 30
public organisation.
Despite the legal implications WikiLeaks publishes this suppression order, as it will
others, to uphold our values of freedom of information and transparency of government
the Australian people have a right to know, we work to ensure this right for them, even
when their government tries to obstruct it. 35
WikiLeaks suggests there has not been a comparable blanket suppression order since
1995 when the Australian government sought to suppress publication by Fairfax Media of
details of a joint US-Australian espionage operation to bug a new Chinese embassy in
Canberra. (Click here to read more)
Actually the situation is a lot worse than Assange or anyone else knows when you consider 40
that Suppression Orders on Suppression Orders are being issued for simple court cases like
defamation suits for people like Stokes. Where did the federal government get the idea to
get the Suppression Order on a Suppression Order? Maybe the idea came from my matter
with Stokes as they have been aware of it for months.


9
p9 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati



10
p10 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Where you see JM, KS and SD they are the initials for Justine Munsie, Kerry Stokes and
Shane Dowling.
Section 6 is the Suppression Order and then lists what things are covered by the
Suppression Order. Section 6 G is stating that there is a suppression order on the
suppression order where is says any orders of the court made in these proceedings. (the 5
suppression Order) (Click here for a PDF version of the suppression orders) That means
at the time the Suppression Order was in effect I could not even tell people that Kerry
Stokes was suing me for defamation and that there was a suppression order put on it. I
could not even say someone is suing me and there is a suppression order on it. Yep, this is
Australia your new Communist State. (Click here to read the transcript for Kerry Stokess 10
barristers (Sandy Dawson) private hearing on the 14th of April with Justice Harrison
(when I was not there) to have the Suppression Order issued)
The court never charged me for contempt Kerry Stokes did. So who runs the court? Stokes
seems to.
As a side note the Financial Review published a story on the case Thursday morning before 15
Nicholas heard the sentencing, so at least someone in the MSM have done their job (Click
here to read - It is behind a paywall)
The Suppression Order on the Suppression Order and why I have to be punished
What has happened is a deliberate attempt by Kerry Stokes and his mates in the courts to
send a message to all the little people. Do as youre told otherwise you will pay. The reason 20
given by Kerry Stokes that he was entitled to a suppression order in the first place was that
I disobeyed an instruction from him in 2011 not to publish a threatening letter sent to me
by his lawyer. Courts are issuing those types of orders on a regular basis and do not want
others to disobey them. (Click here to read)
What every Australian should be concerned about is how does a billionaire media owner 25
like Seven Group Holdings Limited Executive Chairman Kerry Stokes manage to get a
Suppression Order on a Suppression Order in a defamation case and how many other times
has this happened and to whom and by whom.
Judgments of William Henric Nicholas QC or also known as Nicholas AJ
Acting Justice Nicholas heard the contempt proceedings on the 15th July and handed down 30
a judgment on the 22nd July and then heard the sentencing hearing on Thursday (31/7/14)
in my absence and handed down a judgment ex tempore (in court immediately). I only
found out about the judgment on Friday when I phoned the court myself. I wrote a post
about the contempt hearing (Click here to read) and click here for the sentencing judgment.
I did email in submissions but they pretty much went in the bin as Nicholas admits. (Click 35
here to read the submissions). I could dissect how corrupt both of Nicholass judgments are
further than I have but Ill save that for another time. The fine is $2000 and Stokes costs
are to be paid forthwith on an indemnity basis.
Today it is me, tomorrow it could be you or another journalist or another blogger or simply
someone using Twister or Facebook etc. Where is the attack on free speech and political 40
communication coming from? The people who are meant to protect your rights like
Channel 7s Kerry Stokes and the politicians who protect him.


11
p11 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Make sure you save a copy of the above picture and start putting it everywhere such as
Facebook, Twitter and even the local message board etc.
So what is motivating Kerry Stokes Nothing more than a power trip
Some might wonder why Stokes is doing what he is. Well Stokes has a long history of 5
suing anyone and everyone, just Google the C7 case for starters were Stokes had to pay
$200 million in legal fees and lost badly. But then it could be the fact that I have written
numerous times about the 2010 election year bribe where Kerry Stokes has been ripping
off the tax payer and not paying his share. (Click here to read more)
Mr Stokes has been married four times and does not talk to his 2 children from his first 10
marriage. In a story in the SMH last year titled Billionaires forgotten family speaks
out Stokess granddaughter is quoted as saying: I am very disappointed in him, and a
little bit disgusted that he can publish things about his other children and leave out his
other wife and children and his granddaughter. I dont really have any sympathy for him,
says Tara, the four-times-married billionaires granddaughter by his eldest son, Russell. 15
(Click here to read more)
I wouldnt normally raise someones personal issues but I think in this case given his
extreme relationship with his own family it helps to some degree explain
why Stokes acts as he does. Stokes seems to only care about power and nothing else.
Is Kerry Stokes a fit and proper person to be a Director of a company? 20


12
p12 4-8-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Directors of companies are meant to be fit and proper people. The question that has to be
asked is whether Mr Stokes fits that category. I have no doubt he does not and that he
should resign or be sacked from his position as Executive Chairman of Seven Group
Holdings Limited.
Someone wrote a while ago in the comment section that they felt sorry for me regarding 5
being sued by Stokes. Well there is nothing to feel sorry about as this website is about
driving change for the better and if you are going to try and change things you are going
come up against obstacles. Thats all Stokes is, an obstacle and he is not as tough and
powerful as he thinks he is. In part at least what is happening with the Suppression
Orders is an attempt at media control/censorship or at least social media control/censorship. 10
What you can do to help!
The obvious thing is that you can use the social media buttons and promote this post
because the number of likes and how times it is promoted on Twitter etc will influence
whether or not the politicians do anything. And make a donation if you can which helps a
lot. But also use the contacts below and ask the politicians why they havent already taken 15
action given I notified them long ago what is happening. Remember all Australians rights
which include your rights have been undermined by the precedent that Justice Nicholas and
others have set. Because a precedent is a law and it is what other courts, especially lower
courts, are meant to follow.
Contacts to email and phone and ask them what they are doing about protecting your 20
right to free speech and political communication regarding the above:
Federal Attorney-General George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au Ph(02) 6277 7300
NSW Premier Mike Baird office@premier.nsw.gov.au Ph (02) 9228 5555
NSW Attorney-General Brad Hazzard office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Ph (02) 9228 5258
END QUOTE KCA Website 25

We do not know now if potential witnesses may now be unable to come forwards by the secrecy
of proceedings being left in the dark that bank officials are or may be involved in corrupt or other
inappropriate conduct. Yet, if the Reserve Bank of Australia was deemed to be too big to fail
then the public would be held financially liable to make up for this. In essence the courts become 30
part of the problem and corruption when it prevents open public debate about matters while
directly and/or indirectly the public is held financial accountable. This rather ensures that banks
will continue to operate in a reckless manner so to say knowing the court is in the pocket of the
government to protect it from any political fallout that otherwise may occur where the general
public becomes aware of how a responsible Minister has failed to act responsible. In such 35
circumstances neither bail out or bail in can be held appropriate for this also.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
40
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)